Pit bulls are safe around children!

[koshergrl]

A lot of what I see when it comes to these ordinances aimed at Pit Bulls is a lot overly-dramatic and reactionary bullshit.

Based on hysterical reporting from idiot reporters who write stories long on sensationalism, and short on fact. Plus they rarely report non pit attacks.

 

[Asclepias]

Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Not a pit and also popular in the US.

No, it's one of a couple breeds of dogs that are considered Pit Bulls.

Who considers this unique breed to be a pit bull? See this is exactly what i'm talking about.

Staffordshire Bull Terrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a medium-sized, stocky, and very muscular dog, with a similar appearance to the much larger American Staffordshire Terrier and American Pit Bull Terrier, ......."

Your own link calls it a Pit Bull.

Where?

First link, first paragraph.

It said commonly known as....

" is one of several breeds commonly known as pit bulls."

That just tells the reader that lots of people group these dogs together and are calling them that out of ignorance. Hence the term "commonly" and lack of capitalization of the term "pit bull". There is only one breed that are APBT and thats why there is a DNA test for verification.

ANDR American Pitbull Terrier DNA Testing

 

[koshergrl]

Again. You say you are for breed bans. Breed ban means euthanizing the banned breed.

I said I was for businesses and local government establishing their own bans. As well as insurance companies charging you and arm and a leg to cover your dog. That means I'm for letting the locals figure it out, if they don't go BSL, that's fine too. If they do then you would need to move I guess. Though I would also be for grandfathering any law in where you just can't get more Pit Bulls.

Do you have organic brain issues? Because we went over as nauseum the statute that explained that in rural Oregon, dog at large that is running is presumed to be engaged in illegal pursuit and can be killed by anyone. You don't think that's what it says...because you're illiterate...but I can't help with that. View attachment 50133 it's bedtime here.

Doesn't say that at all. It mentions chasing livestock, not simply running down the street. Here it is:

609.150¹
Right to kill dog that harms or chases livestock
(1)Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, any dog, whether licensed or not, which, while off the premises owned or under control of its owner, kills, wounds, or injures any livestock not belonging to the master of such dog, is a public nuisance and may be killed immediately by any person. However, nothing in this section applies to any dog acting under the direction of its master, or the agents or employees of such master.

(2)If any dog, not under the control of its owner or keeper, is found chasing or feeding upon the warm carcass of livestock not the property of such owner or keeper it shall be deemed, prima facie, as engaged in killing, wounding or injuring livestock.

(3)No person shall kill any dog for killing, wounding, injuring or chasing chickens upon a public place, highway or within the corporate limits of any city. [Amended by 1975 c.749 §6]

So, if the dog is chasing livestock or in the act of eating it, you can shoot it (unless it's chickens). Where does it say you can shoot a dog simply for running? And no, it's not presumed that if a dog runs its chasing livestock.

Chasing livestock is what dogs are doing when they're running unsupervised in cattle and sheep country. And I also provided the law from yet another state that said ppl could shoot dogs at large. I've no doubt you misinterpreted what I said, as well as what the laws state. I appreciate your confusion. But as I've said, your inability to grasp concepts doesn't make me wrong.

Got it, dogs only run when chasing cattle. I guess that makes the decision to shoot them trouble free. That's ridiculous.

it is ridiculous. Why on earth did you say it?

 

[HappyJoy]

No, it's one of a couple breeds of dogs that are considered Pit Bulls.

Who considers this unique breed to be a pit bull? See this is exactly what i'm talking about.

Staffordshire Bull Terrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a medium-sized, stocky, and very muscular dog, with a similar appearance to the much larger American Staffordshire Terrier and American Pit Bull Terrier, ......."

Your own link calls it a Pit Bull.

Where?

First link, first paragraph.

It said commonly known as....

" is one of several breeds commonly known as pit bulls."

That just tells the reader that lots of people group these dogs together and are calling them that out of ignorance. Hence the "commonly". There is only one breed that are APBT and thats why there is a DNA test for verification.

ANDR American Pitbull Terrier DNA Testing

No, they are a grouping of dog breeds with similar traits. When people talk about Pit Bull statistics, these are the dogs they are talking about.

 

[HappyJoy]

Again. You say you are for breed bans. Breed ban means euthanizing the banned breed.

I said I was for businesses and local government establishing their own bans. As well as insurance companies charging you and arm and a leg to cover your dog. That means I'm for letting the locals figure it out, if they don't go BSL, that's fine too. If they do then you would need to move I guess. Though I would also be for grandfathering any law in where you just can't get more Pit Bulls.

Do you have organic brain issues? Because we went over as nauseum the statute that explained that in rural Oregon, dog at large that is running is presumed to be engaged in illegal pursuit and can be killed by anyone. You don't think that's what it says...because you're illiterate...but I can't help with that. View attachment 50133 it's bedtime here.

Doesn't say that at all. It mentions chasing livestock, not simply running down the street. Here it is:

609.150¹
Right to kill dog that harms or chases livestock
(1)Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, any dog, whether licensed or not, which, while off the premises owned or under control of its owner, kills, wounds, or injures any livestock not belonging to the master of such dog, is a public nuisance and may be killed immediately by any person. However, nothing in this section applies to any dog acting under the direction of its master, or the agents or employees of such master.

(2)If any dog, not under the control of its owner or keeper, is found chasing or feeding upon the warm carcass of livestock not the property of such owner or keeper it shall be deemed, prima facie, as engaged in killing, wounding or injuring livestock.

(3)No person shall kill any dog for killing, wounding, injuring or chasing chickens upon a public place, highway or within the corporate limits of any city. [Amended by 1975 c.749 §6]

So, if the dog is chasing livestock or in the act of eating it, you can shoot it (unless it's chickens). Where does it say you can shoot a dog simply for running? And no, it's not presumed that if a dog runs its chasing livestock.

Chasing livestock is what dogs are doing when they're running unsupervised in cattle and sheep country. And I also provided the law from yet another state that said ppl could shoot dogs at large. I've no doubt you misinterpreted what I said, as well as what the laws state. I appreciate your confusion. But as I've said, your inability to grasp concepts doesn't make me wrong.

Got it, dogs only run when chasing cattle. I guess that makes the decision to shoot them trouble free. That's ridiculous.

it is ridiculous. Why on earth did you say it?

That seeing a running dog is reason enough to shoot it.

 

[HappyJoy]

More on Pit Bulls:

Pit bulls were created by breeding bulldogs and terriers together to produce a dog that combined the gameness and agility of the terrier with the strength of the bulldog.[3] In the United Kingdom, these dogs were used in blood sports such as bull-baiting, bear-baiting and cock fighting. These blood sports were officially eliminated in 1835 as Britain began to introduce animal welfare laws. Since dogfights were cheaper to organize and far easier to conceal from the law than bull or bear baits, blood sport proponents turned to pitting their dogs against each other instead. Dog fighting was used as both a blood sport (often involving gambling) and a way to continue to test the quality of their stock. For decades afterwards, dog fighting clandestinely took place in small areas of Britain and America. In the early 20th century pit bulls were used as catch dogs in America for semi-wild cattle and hogs, to hunt, and drive livestock, and as family companions.[3] Some have been selectively bred for their fighting prowess.[4][5]

Pit bulls successfully fill the role of companion dogs, police dogs,[10][11] and therapy dogs.[12] Pit bulls also constitute the majority of dogs used for illegal dog fighting in America.[13] In addition, law enforcement organisations report these dogs are used for other nefarious purposes, such as guarding illegal narcotics operations,[14][15] use against police,[16] and as attack dogs.[17]

In an effort to counter the fighting reputation of pit bull-type dogs, in 1996 the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals renamed pit bull terriers to "St. Francis Terriers", so that people might be more likely to adopt them.[18] 60 temperament-screened dogs were adopted until the program was halted, after several of the newly adopted pit bulls killed cats.[19] The New York City Center for Animal Care and Control tried a similar approach in 2004, relabeling their pit bulls as "New Yorkies", but dropped the idea in the face of overwhelming public opposition.[20][21]

 

[Asclepias]

Who considers this unique breed to be a pit bull? See this is exactly what i'm talking about.

Staffordshire Bull Terrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a medium-sized, stocky, and very muscular dog, with a similar appearance to the much larger American Staffordshire Terrier and American Pit Bull Terrier, ......."

Your own link calls it a Pit Bull.

Where?

First link, first paragraph.

It said commonly known as....

" is one of several breeds commonly known as pit bulls."

That just tells the reader that lots of people group these dogs together and are calling them that out of ignorance. Hence the "commonly". There is only one breed that are APBT and thats why there is a DNA test for verification.

ANDR American Pitbull Terrier DNA Testing

No, they are a grouping of dog breeds with similar traits. When people talk about Pit Bull statistics, these are the dogs they are talking about.

You cant group a dogs of different breeds together and claim they are one breed. The simple facts are they are not the same breed. There is a dog that looks almost identical to the APBT Called the AMStaff. The APBT is bred from the fighting lines. The AMstaff is not. The AMStaff is recognized by the AKC but not the APBT. They are only recognized by the UKC.

 

[HappyJoy]

Your own link calls it a Pit Bull.

Where?

First link, first paragraph.

It said commonly known as....

" is one of several breeds commonly known as pit bulls."

That just tells the reader that lots of people group these dogs together and are calling them that out of ignorance. Hence the "commonly". There is only one breed that are APBT and thats why there is a DNA test for verification.

ANDR American Pitbull Terrier DNA Testing

No, they are a grouping of dog breeds with similar traits. When people talk about Pit Bull statistics, these are the dogs they are talking about.

You cant group a dogs of different breeds together and claim they are one breed. The simple facts are they are not the same breed. There is a dog that looks almost identical to the APBT Called the AMStaff. The APBT is bred from the fighting lines. The AMstaff is not.

American Pit Bull Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
American Bull Dog
Bull Terrier

All Pit Bulls, I didn't think this was up for debate. Who doesn't call them Pit Bulls?

We could throw in the St. Francis Terrier but that was nothing more than a failed rebranding effort.

 

[Asclepias]

Where?

First link, first paragraph.

It said commonly known as....

" is one of several breeds commonly known as pit bulls."

That just tells the reader that lots of people group these dogs together and are calling them that out of ignorance. Hence the "commonly". There is only one breed that are APBT and thats why there is a DNA test for verification.

ANDR American Pitbull Terrier DNA Testing

No, they are a grouping of dog breeds with similar traits. When people talk about Pit Bull statistics, these are the dogs they are talking about.

You cant group a dogs of different breeds together and claim they are one breed. The simple facts are they are not the same breed. There is a dog that looks almost identical to the APBT Called the AMStaff. The APBT is bred from the fighting lines. The AMstaff is not.

American Pit Bull Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
American Bull Dog
Bull Terrier

All Pit Bulls, I didn't think this was up for debate. Who doesn't call them Pit Bulls?

We could throw in the St. Francis Terrier but that was nothing more than a failed rebranding effort.

People that understand they are different breeds?

That like saying a Himalayan and Persian cat are the same thing. No they are 2 different breeds of furry cats.

 

[koshergrl]

And that's why breed bans are stupid.

Great answer, keep up the good work.

Damn straight. I've backed up everything I said. I can't help it if you're a semi functional idiot.

 

[koshergrl]

Where?

First link, first paragraph.

It said commonly known as....

" is one of several breeds commonly known as pit bulls."

That just tells the reader that lots of people group these dogs together and are calling them that out of ignorance. Hence the "commonly". There is only one breed that are APBT and thats why there is a DNA test for verification.

ANDR American Pitbull Terrier DNA Testing

No, they are a grouping of dog breeds with similar traits. When people talk about Pit Bull statistics, these are the dogs they are talking about.

You cant group a dogs of different breeds together and claim they are one breed. The simple facts are they are not the same breed. There is a dog that looks almost identical to the APBT Called the AMStaff. The APBT is bred from the fighting lines. The AMstaff is not.

American Pit Bull Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
American Bull Dog
Bull Terrier

All Pit Bulls, I didn't think this was up for debate. Who doesn't call them Pit Bulls?

We could throw in the St. Francis Terrier but that was nothing more than a failed rebranding effort.

You are an idiot.

 

[Asclepias]

Where?

First link, first paragraph.

It said commonly known as....

" is one of several breeds commonly known as pit bulls."

That just tells the reader that lots of people group these dogs together and are calling them that out of ignorance. Hence the "commonly". There is only one breed that are APBT and thats why there is a DNA test for verification.

ANDR American Pitbull Terrier DNA Testing

No, they are a grouping of dog breeds with similar traits. When people talk about Pit Bull statistics, these are the dogs they are talking about.

You cant group a dogs of different breeds together and claim they are one breed. The simple facts are they are not the same breed. There is a dog that looks almost identical to the APBT Called the AMStaff. The APBT is bred from the fighting lines. The AMstaff is not.

American Pit Bull Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
American Bull Dog
Bull Terrier

All Pit Bulls, I didn't think this was up for debate. Who doesn't call them Pit Bulls?

We could throw in the St. Francis Terrier but that was nothing more than a failed rebranding effort.

Yeah...I'm really concerned about people that think a Bull Terrier is the same thing as a APBT. Spuds Mackenzie would be outraged.

 

[koshergrl]

Again. You say you are for breed bans. Breed ban means euthanizing the banned breed.

I said I was for businesses and local government establishing their own bans. As well as insurance companies charging you and arm and a leg to cover your dog. That means I'm for letting the locals figure it out, if they don't go BSL, that's fine too. If they do then you would need to move I guess. Though I would also be for grandfathering any law in where you just can't get more Pit Bulls.

Do you have organic brain issues? Because we went over as nauseum the statute that explained that in rural Oregon, dog at large that is running is presumed to be engaged in illegal pursuit and can be killed by anyone. You don't think that's what it says...because you're illiterate...but I can't help with that. View attachment 50133 it's bedtime here.

Doesn't say that at all. It mentions chasing livestock, not simply running down the street. Here it is:

609.150¹
Right to kill dog that harms or chases livestock
(1)Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, any dog, whether licensed or not, which, while off the premises owned or under control of its owner, kills, wounds, or injures any livestock not belonging to the master of such dog, is a public nuisance and may be killed immediately by any person. However, nothing in this section applies to any dog acting under the direction of its master, or the agents or employees of such master.

(2)If any dog, not under the control of its owner or keeper, is found chasing or feeding upon the warm carcass of livestock not the property of such owner or keeper it shall be deemed, prima facie, as engaged in killing, wounding or injuring livestock.

(3)No person shall kill any dog for killing, wounding, injuring or chasing chickens upon a public place, highway or within the corporate limits of any city. [Amended by 1975 c.749 §6]

So, if the dog is chasing livestock or in the act of eating it, you can shoot it (unless it's chickens). Where does it say you can shoot a dog simply for running? And no, it's not presumed that if a dog runs its chasing livestock.

Chasing livestock is what dogs are doing when they're running unsupervised in cattle and sheep country. And I also provided the law from yet another state that said ppl could shoot dogs at large. I've no doubt you misinterpreted what I said, as well as what the laws state. I appreciate your confusion. But as I've said, your inability to grasp concepts doesn't make me wrong.

Got it, dogs only run when chasing cattle. I guess that makes the decision to shoot them trouble free. That's ridiculous.

it is ridiculous. Why on earth did you say it?

That seeing a running dog is reason enough to shoot it.

In some places it is. But that's not what you said. You said I said any dog running is chasing livestock.

 

[HappyJoy]

First link, first paragraph.

It said commonly known as....

" is one of several breeds commonly known as pit bulls."

That just tells the reader that lots of people group these dogs together and are calling them that out of ignorance. Hence the "commonly". There is only one breed that are APBT and thats why there is a DNA test for verification.

ANDR American Pitbull Terrier DNA Testing

No, they are a grouping of dog breeds with similar traits. When people talk about Pit Bull statistics, these are the dogs they are talking about.

You cant group a dogs of different breeds together and claim they are one breed. The simple facts are they are not the same breed. There is a dog that looks almost identical to the APBT Called the AMStaff. The APBT is bred from the fighting lines. The AMstaff is not.

American Pit Bull Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
American Bull Dog
Bull Terrier

All Pit Bulls, I didn't think this was up for debate. Who doesn't call them Pit Bulls?

We could throw in the St. Francis Terrier but that was nothing more than a failed rebranding effort.

People that understand they are different breeds?

That like saying a Himalayan and Persian cat are the same thing. No they are 2 different breeds of furry cats.

Ok, they are still all Pit Bulls. often sharing the same lineage and traits. This is not a new concept.

 

[HappyJoy]

First link, first paragraph.

It said commonly known as....

" is one of several breeds commonly known as pit bulls."

That just tells the reader that lots of people group these dogs together and are calling them that out of ignorance. Hence the "commonly". There is only one breed that are APBT and thats why there is a DNA test for verification.

ANDR American Pitbull Terrier DNA Testing

No, they are a grouping of dog breeds with similar traits. When people talk about Pit Bull statistics, these are the dogs they are talking about.

You cant group a dogs of different breeds together and claim they are one breed. The simple facts are they are not the same breed. There is a dog that looks almost identical to the APBT Called the AMStaff. The APBT is bred from the fighting lines. The AMstaff is not.

American Pit Bull Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
American Bull Dog
Bull Terrier

All Pit Bulls, I didn't think this was up for debate. Who doesn't call them Pit Bulls?

We could throw in the St. Francis Terrier but that was nothing more than a failed rebranding effort.

Yeah...I'm really concerned about people that think a Bull Terrier is the same thing as a APBT. Spuds Mackenzie would be outraged.

They aren't the same thing, there is a huge size difference. They are both Pit Bulls.

 

[HappyJoy]

I said I was for businesses and local government establishing their own bans. As well as insurance companies charging you and arm and a leg to cover your dog. That means I'm for letting the locals figure it out, if they don't go BSL, that's fine too. If they do then you would need to move I guess. Though I would also be for grandfathering any law in where you just can't get more Pit Bulls.

Doesn't say that at all. It mentions chasing livestock, not simply running down the street. Here it is:

609.150¹
Right to kill dog that harms or chases livestock
(1)Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, any dog, whether licensed or not, which, while off the premises owned or under control of its owner, kills, wounds, or injures any livestock not belonging to the master of such dog, is a public nuisance and may be killed immediately by any person. However, nothing in this section applies to any dog acting under the direction of its master, or the agents or employees of such master.

(2)If any dog, not under the control of its owner or keeper, is found chasing or feeding upon the warm carcass of livestock not the property of such owner or keeper it shall be deemed, prima facie, as engaged in killing, wounding or injuring livestock.

(3)No person shall kill any dog for killing, wounding, injuring or chasing chickens upon a public place, highway or within the corporate limits of any city. [Amended by 1975 c.749 §6]

So, if the dog is chasing livestock or in the act of eating it, you can shoot it (unless it's chickens). Where does it say you can shoot a dog simply for running? And no, it's not presumed that if a dog runs its chasing livestock.

Chasing livestock is what dogs are doing when they're running unsupervised in cattle and sheep country. And I also provided the law from yet another state that said ppl could shoot dogs at large. I've no doubt you misinterpreted what I said, as well as what the laws state. I appreciate your confusion. But as I've said, your inability to grasp concepts doesn't make me wrong.

Got it, dogs only run when chasing cattle. I guess that makes the decision to shoot them trouble free. That's ridiculous.

it is ridiculous. Why on earth did you say it?

That seeing a running dog is reason enough to shoot it.

In some places it is. But that's not what you said. You said I said any dog running is chasing livestock.

Sweet heart, this is getting old. Where you live it's not enough of a reason. I don't remember if you ever demonstrated that is the case in another state. Just do the dogs where you live a favor, don't shoot them simply for running. I'm kind of done with this.

 

[Asclepias]

It said commonly known as....

" is one of several breeds commonly known as pit bulls."

That just tells the reader that lots of people group these dogs together and are calling them that out of ignorance. Hence the "commonly". There is only one breed that are APBT and thats why there is a DNA test for verification.

ANDR American Pitbull Terrier DNA Testing

No, they are a grouping of dog breeds with similar traits. When people talk about Pit Bull statistics, these are the dogs they are talking about.

You cant group a dogs of different breeds together and claim they are one breed. The simple facts are they are not the same breed. There is a dog that looks almost identical to the APBT Called the AMStaff. The APBT is bred from the fighting lines. The AMstaff is not.

American Pit Bull Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
American Bull Dog
Bull Terrier

All Pit Bulls, I didn't think this was up for debate. Who doesn't call them Pit Bulls?

We could throw in the St. Francis Terrier but that was nothing more than a failed rebranding effort.

People that understand they are different breeds?

That like saying a Himalayan and Persian cat are the same thing. No they are 2 different breeds of furry cats.

Ok, they are still all Pit Bulls. often sharing the same lineage and traits. This is not a new concept.

No they are not Pitbulls. This is exactly what I am talking about. These dogs were bred for different purposes. Pitbulls were bred to be dog aggressive, people friendly and ironically more stable as well as being able to fight to the death. American bulldogs were bred to be working dogs and home protectors on the american frontier. You can make an argument and say they are related but then we would have to include all dogs, wolves, foxes, etc.

 

[Asclepias]

It said commonly known as....

" is one of several breeds commonly known as pit bulls."

That just tells the reader that lots of people group these dogs together and are calling them that out of ignorance. Hence the "commonly". There is only one breed that are APBT and thats why there is a DNA test for verification.

ANDR American Pitbull Terrier DNA Testing

No, they are a grouping of dog breeds with similar traits. When people talk about Pit Bull statistics, these are the dogs they are talking about.

You cant group a dogs of different breeds together and claim they are one breed. The simple facts are they are not the same breed. There is a dog that looks almost identical to the APBT Called the AMStaff. The APBT is bred from the fighting lines. The AMstaff is not.

American Pit Bull Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
American Bull Dog
Bull Terrier

All Pit Bulls, I didn't think this was up for debate. Who doesn't call them Pit Bulls?

We could throw in the St. Francis Terrier but that was nothing more than a failed rebranding effort.

Yeah...I'm really concerned about people that think a Bull Terrier is the same thing as a APBT. Spuds Mackenzie would be outraged.

They aren't the same thing, there is a huge size difference. They are both Pit Bulls.

Can you explain that? They arent the same thing but they are both Pitbulls?

 

[Bfgrn]

I am assuming you meant "not ready for them"? I would be for requiring some sort of certificate saying you were trained how to specifically raise a pit. I know some people that do great work with adult dogs but my instincts have always told me the best dog is one that you have known and raised since it was a young pup. What is happening to pits is the same thing that happened with Dobies and German sheperds. Now Pits and Rotts are getting the vicious rap. As more people get these dogs of course the rates of bites will go up. Not too long ago more people had poodles. Guess what? They lead in the number of bites as well.

Banning pit bulls saves lives and protects the innocent
May 24, 2013

Whether to ban pit bulls is a human health and safety issue that should be steered by health and safety officials. Public safety is not the profession of animal advocates. Thus, public policy coming from animal advocates concerning protecting humans from pit bulls is fundamentally flawed.

So far this year, 13 of the 14 Americans who have been killed by dogs — 93 percent — were killed by pit bulls and pit mixes. This is well above the average of 60 percent from 2005 to 2012.

As the pit bull population rises, more human fatalities ensue. During the last eight-year period that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied fatal attacks by breed (1991 to 1998), pit bulls were estimated at 1 percent of the U.S. dog population. Pit bulls killed an average of three people per year.

The pit bull population has since grown to 4 percent. During the most recent eight-year period (2005-12), pit bulls killed an average of 19 people per year.

Miami-Dade County, which banned pit bulls in 1989, has avoided this loss of life. Other Florida counties — prohibited by state law from regulating dogs by breed — continue to experience deaths and disfigurements due to pit bulls. Since 1989, 18 Florida citizens have been killed by pit bulls — none within Miami-Dade.

The threat from pit bulls results from the combination of the animals' inclination to attack without warning — an essential trait of fighting dogs — and the type of injuries that pit bulls typically inflict.

Most dogs bite and retreat, but pit bulls have a hold-and-shake bite style, and tenaciously refuse to stop an attack once begun.

Often a pit bull releases its grip only when dead — the trait dog fighters describe as being "dead game."

Ban opponents often blame dismembering and fatal attacks on environmental factors, such as neglect. That, unfortunately, is the plight of too many dogs of all breeds, not just those who kill and maim.

Opponents also fail to distinguish dog-bite-injury severity. They argue that bans "do not reduce all dog bites." Of the 4.7 million Americans bitten by dogs each year, 9,500 require hospitalization for severe dog-bite injuries. The most extreme injury level, mauling injury, requires life-saving procedures at trauma centers.

The purpose of a pit bull ban is to eradicate mauling injuries and deaths inflicted by pit bulls, the breed involved in more than half of all severe and mauling attacks.

Since 1986, 18 appellate decisions have upheld lower-court findings that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dog breeds.

Since 1988, four peer-reviewed studies published in leading medical journals have reviewed the severity of pit bull injury. "Mortality, Mauling and Maiming by Vicious Dogs," published in the Annals of Surgery in 2011, concluded the following:

"Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Strict regulation of pit bulls may substantially reduce the U.S. mortality rates related to dog bites."

In April 2012, the highest court in Maryland declared pit bulls "inherently dangerous," altering common law pertaining to pit bull attacks. Pit bulls are prima facia dangerous in Maryland and held to a strict liability standard. In instances of a tenant's pit bull attacking, this liability extends to the landlord. The court cited the entire abstract of the 2011 Annals of Surgery study in its opinion.

Influential pit bull advocates have supported regulation in the past and are doing so now. On its Facebook page, the Villalobos Rescue Center, founded by Tia Torres of Animal Planet's Pit Bulls & Parolees — expressed support for a proposal in Louisiana on the heels of a mutilating attack on a woman by her own pit bulls.

It is time for Florida pit bull advocacy groups to follow suit.

The Front Burner: Should pit bulls be banned?

 

[Bfgrn]

Based on hysterical reporting from idiot reporters who write stories long on sensationalism, and short on fact. Plus they rarely report non pit attacks.

There is a good reason "they rarely report non pit attacks"...

Most non pit bull attacks do not end up with someone being maimed, losing a limb or ending up in the morgue.


Banning pit bulls saves lives and protects the innocent

Most dogs bite and retreat, but pit bulls have a hold-and-shake bite style, and tenaciously refuse to stop an attack once begun.

Often a pit bull releases its grip only when dead — the trait dog fighters describe as being "dead game."

Ban opponents often blame dismembering and fatal attacks on environmental factors, such as neglect. That, unfortunately, is the plight of too many dogs of all breeds, not just those who kill and maim.

Opponents also fail to distinguish dog-bite-injury severity. They argue that bans "do not reduce all dog bites." Of the 4.7 million Americans bitten by dogs each year, 9,500 require hospitalization for severe dog-bite injuries. The most extreme injury level, mauling injury, requires life-saving procedures at trauma centers.

The purpose of a pit bull ban is to eradicate mauling injuries and deaths inflicted by pit bulls, the breed involved in more than half of all severe and mauling attacks.

Since 1986, 18 appellate decisions have upheld lower-court findings that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dog breeds.

Since 1988, four peer-reviewed studies published in leading medical journals have reviewed the severity of pit bull injury. "Mortality, Mauling and Maiming by Vicious Dogs," published in the Annals of Surgery in 2011, concluded the following:

"Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Strict regulation of pit bulls may substantially reduce the U.S. mortality rates related to dog bites."

The Front Burner: Should pit bulls be banned?